If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

At the moment, It is agreed that we are moving through space with the other
planets.

This is thaught to have occured due to a 'big bang' which caused the planets
to be formed, And for it all to come from one origin.

What if there was no 'big bang'.

I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space. In fact, I
heard of a new space-ship, using 'sails' to propel it through space.

If these 'winds' can transport a small object through space, then it is just
as likely to transport a large object through space, namely a planet such as
ours. In fact it could probably push large solar systems and galaxies through
the universe on a 'wave'.

This is just a theory, so could you please email me back, telling me if this
is all wrong. If it is correct, then can you tell me the email address of
someone who knows a lot about the sbject, and could provide me with an even
greater insight into the topic.

The professionals here can correct me if I'm wrong or am missing something, but my understanding is that any alternative to the Big Bang theory needs to explain at least the following:

- the cosmic background radiation
- the apparent correlation between red shift and distance (Hubble's law)
- evidence that the universe has evolved (quasars at distances only, galaxies in Hubble Deep Field clearly more primitive)
- evidence that the universe is expanding
- the relative abundances of light isotopes
- the darkness of the night sky (Olbers' paradox)

I'm not sure if your concept explains any of this (except maybe the expansion part), but then I'm not sure I understand it, either.

Welcome to the Bad Astronomy Bulliten Board (BABB). While I'm no expert and not an astronomy professional, I'll take a stab at some specific answers.

On 2002-01-23 07:05, p9107 wrote:

At the moment, It is agreed that we are moving through space with the other
planets.

While this is correct it has nothing to do with the BB cosmology. The planets orbit (move through space) around the Sun due to a forces called gravity and angular momentum. This has been known for about 400 years. This happens on a scale that is sub-microscopic compared to cosmology which has to do with 100's of millions of galaxies, spread over 10's of billions of light years.

This is thaught to have occured due to a 'big bang' which caused the planets
to be formed, And for it all to come from one origin.

While it is true that the BB was indirectly responsible for planet formation, it is generally accepted that planet formation is part of the process of star formation.

The BB is generally credited with galaxy formation, galaxies with star formation and stars with planet formation.

What if there was no 'big bang'.

There is some rather lively discussion about this very thing elsewhere on BABB.

I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space. In fact, I
heard of a new space-ship, using 'sails' to propel it through space.

What you are refering to is the Solar Wind. This is an outward flow of atomic particles from the Sun. There is currently a project to create a space craft that will capture the energy from the SW to propel the craft around our Solar System. Again, this is strictly a local, as within the Solar System, effect. It has nothing to do with BB cosmology.

If these 'winds' can transport a small object through space, then it is just
as likely to transport a large object through space, namely a planet such as
ours. In fact it could probably push large solar systems and galaxies through
the universe on a 'wave'.

The Solar Wind effect is FAR TO WEAK to propel planets anywhere. For example; comets which come barreling in from the Oort cloud have only a tiny fraction of the mass of Pluto (our smallest planet), yet they readily over power the SW.

This is just a theory, so could you please email me back, telling me if this
is all wrong. If it is correct, then can you tell me the email address of
someone who knows a lot about the sbject, and could provide me with an even
greater insight into the topic.

The Bad Astronomer is an excellent source of information. There are also other professional astronomers that frequint the BABB who, I'm sure, will be happy to give you better answers than mine. I encourage you to do a search on "google" for "solar wind". I'm sure you will find many interesting sites.

Ok...So I might be a little wrong. Thanks, everyone, for replying to this. To tell you the truth, I am 15 years old, and live in England. I don't have much 'real' knowledge on the topic, but I thaught of it when I was lying in bed trying to get to sleep. I am sure it is mostly wrong (perhaps even impossible) but it was worth asking

In the past ten years, I have come up with many new theories. One is that the earth actually exhibits regular planforms of convection. Two is that the mantle is more viscous than many researchers believed thirty years ago, based upon their own data. Three is that claims that Subramanyan Chandrasekhar proved that degree one convection of the mantle was impossible are in error. Four is that anomalous splitting of the modes of earth vibration are a result of degree one offsets. Five is that core-mantle perturbations are responsible for anomalous length-of-day variation, as well as Chandler wobble excitation. Six is that there is more than one time dimension. Seven is that the disproof of Whitehead's alternative theory of relativity is not completely valid. Eight is that the Earth has no pear-shape. Nine is that astrology and biorhythms might have an evolutionary basis. Ten is that SIDs is basically rebreathing suffocation. Eleven is that Uranus was the star of Bethlehem. Twelve is that you can lose weight by changing your breathing. Thirteen is that...well, that's unlucky. There're many more.

On 2002-01-23 12:04, p9107 wrote:
"...I thought of it when I was lying in bed trying to get to sleep."

A lot of fascinating ideas have been discovered that way. (You're in good company with a lot of famous thinkers.) Keep thinking, and welcome to this bulletin board. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Hello again,
I don't know what your real name is, but Mr. GrapesOfWrath, how can there be more than one time dimension. I understand that there are many dimensions which exist in sub-atomic particles, but how can time exist in more than one dimension? Do you mean the 'Tesser' theory?

No...I mean the tesser theory which states that it is possible for an object to travel from one point to another immediately, with no time spent traveling. It is a theory put forward by Jason Tesser, in the 1980's.

P9107, at least you understodd that much. I'll chew me banana whilst trying to fiugre out the first 7 of GrapesofWrath's 12 things to think upon. Erm...where is the dictionary... And to think to look up in the sky and see stars required so much friggin brainpower [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

On 2002-01-25 07:18, ChallegedChimp wrote:
the first 7 of GrapesofWrath's 12 things to think upon.

The first five are mostly geophysics, and I think if I went into detail, Code Red and ToSeek would get mad at me for mixing up astronomy and earth science. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

On 2002-01-25 04:24, p9107 wrote:
No...I mean the tesser theory which states that it is possible for an object to travel from one point to another immediately, with no time spent traveling. It is a theory put forward by Jason Tesser, in the 1980's.

Is this what you meant by there being more than one time dimension?

I'm not sure, how does Tesser accomplish that?

I tried to do a search, and couldn't find anything online about a Jason Tesser with such theories. Do you have some links?

Um...no.
I havn't found any links, but there was a book published a couple of years ago - I can't remember the title immeadiately, but i will have a look for it tonight. I will be able to tell you tommorrow.

After coming up with the idea, I did a web search and found that Heinlein--who I had read up until maybe 1975--wrote a book about it in the late 70's, called The Number of the Beast. He called the three time dimensions tee, tau (Greek), and teh (Cyrillic).

I don't recall anything like that. They could set an axis, and rotate about it, using a device invented by one of the characters. The key to using it was a powerful AI computer that could memorize coordinates and instantly zoom back to those coordinates, with offsets.

On 2002-01-28 09:32, p9107 wrote:
OK, i've found thye name of the book - it is called "A Wrinkle in Time".

Space equals time, in other words."

...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
How can time exist in any more than one?

One is then assuming that time is at least linear. Though there may seem to be a "direction" to time, that is largely for simplification.

Since time travel cannot be validated, and seems to have completely destructive paradoxes associated with it moving in the opposite direction, for now, I'm assuming time is not a linear function except to linear-beings... like us.

I'm heading more towards zero-point fields and string theory, which don't have such hangups.